This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

Then there are some like Wythe and Dickenson who were former slave owners turned abolitionists that haven't been mentioned.

One specific delegate was surprisingly missing from the previous lists of slave owners: Robert Morris.

Morris was perhaps even worse than a slave owner, he was a slave trader.

The earlier list was most definitely wrong as far as total number of slave owners at the drafting of the constitution. I've specifically listed 4 additional ones that were slave owners at some point in their lives, one of whom was actually a slave trader.

“[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.”
—Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.

One specific delegate was surprisingly missing from the previous lists of slave owners: Robert Morris.

Morris had gotten out of the slave business, by the 1787 convention. He was also from Pennsylvania, which had abolished slavery in 1780.

The earlier list was most definitely wrong as far as total number of slave owners at the drafting of the constitution. I've specifically listed 4 additional ones that were slave owners at some point in their lives, one of whom was actually a slave trader.

Actually, you only added one name to the list, that owned slaves in 1787.

Ultimately, there wasn't a, "large percentage", of the founders that owned slaves in 1787 and there was a large percentage of the founders that wanted to abolish slavery.

So, the notion that the founders weren't interested in abolishing slavery, or that there was a large percentage of them that owned slaves, or supported slavery is completely erroneous.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

Originally Posted by Hatuey

This is false. There were 12 PLANTATION OWNERS. I read the wikipedia article you copy and pasted all those names from verbatim. I know you're not knowledgeable enough about this issue to actually recite those names. Please learn actual facts? Here is what the Wikipedia article you copy and pasted those names from actually says:

Re: Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

Which has no bearing on the fact that he, himself, owned slaves. He just wanted the northern states to have a representative advantage from not counting them.

Morris had gotten out of the slave business, by the 1787 convention. He was also from Pennsylvania, which had abolished slavery in 1780.

Most of his slave trading occured in places other than Pennsylvania.

Actually, you only added one name to the list, that owned slaves in 1787.

Which proves that your list was not accurate. If it's not accurate, you have no ability to lay claim that otehrs are misinformed.

In fact, the proper course is to say "Looks lik eI was wrong" instead of defending your inaccuracies.

Plus, nobody limited the slave ownership to 1787. Remember, the original claim was that a large percentage of founding fathers were slave owners. The discussion about Delegates at the convention is a red herring in many ways. The point is that a large percentage of the founding fathers were slave owners. Thus, showing that they owned slaves at any point in their lifetime fulfills this description.

Ultimately, there wasn't a, "large percentage", of the founders that owned slaves in 1787 and there was a large percentage of the founders that wanted to abolish slavery.

There was a large percentage of founding fathers were slave owners and there was a large percentage of them who were abolishionists. It's not like it's a dichotomy (as a majority vs. a minority would be)

Even assuming that the evidence posted by Hatuey (which, unlike your claims, has not been proven to be innaccurate) which claim 25 of 55 delagates owned slaves, and we use the numbers what you posted (with the addition of those I added to the list, of course) we get two possible numbers. 15 out of 55 if we exclude those who probably didn't own slaves in 1787, such as Franklin, Wythe, Morris, and Dickenson (Madison was a slave owner pretty much his entire life), or 19 out of 55 if we are more honest and include those people in the rankings.

This means that, at minimum somewhere between 27% and 35% of the founding fathers who were delegates at the Constitutional convention owned slaves in their lives. One out of every three or four at a minimum.

Now, this is a large percentage. For example, if 27-35% of your brain were to stop functioning, it would be considered extensive brain damage. If you lost 27% of your limbs, it would be a large percentage.

Is it a majority? Of course not, but nobody claimed it was.

But remember, this doesn't include signatories to the DoI or Articles of Confederation.

So, the notion that the founders weren't interested in abolishing slavery, or that there was a large percentage of them that owned slaves, or supported slavery is completely erroneous.

The founders weren't interested in anything universally except establishing a nation. Hell, a good number of them opposed teh damned constitution itself.

But many were in favor of abolition and many were not. There were differences in opinion on the matter.

Re: Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

Which has no bearing on the fact that he, himself, owned slaves. He just wanted the northern states to have a representative advantage from not counting them.

Any docs to prove that that was his opinion?

Most of his slave trading occured in places other than Pennsylvania.

But, not all.

Which proves that your list was not accurate. If it's not accurate, you have no ability to lay claim that otehrs are misinformed.

In fact, the proper course is to say "Looks lik eI was wrong" instead of defending your inaccuracies.

Plus, nobody limited the slave ownership to 1787. Remember, the original claim was that a large percentage of founding fathers were slave owners. The discussion about Delegates at the convention is a red herring in many ways. The point is that a large percentage of the founding fathers were slave owners. Thus, showing that they owned slaves at any point in their lifetime fulfills this description.

I gave you a list of people who owned slaves at the time of the 1787 convention. Ok, I missed one. However, hatuey can't put a name to everyone of the, "25", founders that owned slaves in 1787.

There was a large percentage of founding fathers were slave owners and there was a large percentage of them who were abolishionists. It's not like it's a dichotomy (as a majority vs. a minority would be)

Even assuming that the evidence posted by Hatuey (which, unlike your claims, has not been proven to be innaccurate) which claim 25 of 55 delagates owned slaves, and we use the numbers what you posted (with the addition of those I added to the list, of course) we get two possible numbers. 15 out of 55 if we exclude those who probably didn't own slaves in 1787, such as Franklin, Wythe, Morris, and Dickenson (Madison was a slave owner pretty much his entire life), or 19 out of 55 if we are more honest and include those people in the rankings.

This means that, at minimum somewhere between 27% and 35% of the founding fathers who were delegates at the Constitutional convention owned slaves in their lives. One out of every three or four at a minimum.

Now, this is a large percentage. For example, if 27-35% of your brain were to stop functioning, it would be considered extensive brain damage. If you lost 27% of your limbs, it would be a large percentage.

Is it a majority? Of course not, but nobody claimed it was.

But remember, this doesn't include signatories to the DoI or Articles of Confederation.

The founders weren't interested in anything universally except establishing a nation. Hell, a good number of them opposed teh damned constitution itself.

But many were in favor of abolition and many were not. There were differences in opinion on the matter.

No, there wasn't a large percentage. The point that the opposition is trying to make is, A) most of the founders were slave owners and B) even more supported slavery, or didn't care. Both notions have been proven to be false.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

Like I said, when the dust settles, it's the only argument that ya'll have.

How 'bout you go into detail on how the South's culture ane economy was built totally around slavery. Can't wait hear this.

If you're really honest about the conditions in the South even up to the Civil Rights era, you'd acknowledge that servatude was the cultlural lifestyle of the South. Even when slavery was abolished, white Southerns did everything they could to keep Blacks indebted to them. The only real difference between how Northern Whites treated Black compared to Southern Whites where servatude is concerned was that Blacks in the north got paid for their services as a condition of labor even during times of slavery. The wages weren't fair in the least, and sometimes a day's hard work wasn't "satisfactory enough" to warrant payment, but at least Blacks received some measure of "fair compensation" for the work performed, whereas Blacks in the South often times worked a generation as indentured servents to pay-off debts imposed by their White counterparts.

Whether one wishes to admit it or not, servatude was a predominate cultural thing of the South that soon matriculated to the North. That's not being racist or liberal. It's just being honest about one period in time in our nation's history.

Now, I won't get into the "who owned more slaves" debate but IMO it's a ridiculous argument. Initially, the slave trade posed more of a benefit to the south than the nother, but both side profitted from it. The only reason it ended was because someone had the courage to stop it for the good of the nation regardless of whether that "good intention" was for economic reasons or humanitarian.

Re: Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

If you're really honest about the conditions in the South even up to the Civil Rights era, you'd acknowledge that servatude was the cultlural lifestyle of the South. Even when slavery was abolished, white Southerns did everything they could to keep Blacks indebted to them. The only real difference between how Northern Whites treated Black compared to Southern Whites where servatude is concerned was that Blacks in the north got paid for their services as a condition of labor even during times of slavery. The wages weren't fair in the least, and sometimes a day's hard work wasn't "satisfactory enough" to warrant payment, but at least Blacks received some measure of "fair compensation" for the work performed, whereas Blacks in the South often times worked a generation as indentured servents to pay-off debts imposed by their White counterparts.

Whether one wishes to admit it or not, servatude was a predominate cultural thing of the South that soon matriculated to the North. That's not being racist or liberal. It's just being honest about one period in time in our nation's history.

So, it's all about 'dem evul, racist, white southerners, now? Explain to us what that has to do with the constitutional convention of 1787.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

Originally Posted by apdst

So, it's all about 'dem evul, racist, white southerners, now? Explain to us what that has to do with the constitutional convention of 1787.

I didn't say anything like that. So, please don't try to twist my words. History has shown their were Black slave owners as well. But regardless of who owned whom, slavery was wrong. It was a terrible means to an economic end that has hinder a class of people from achieving much over the generations. But in many ways Blacks have caught up to their white counterparts which was what many whites feared even after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

I am but a handful of Blacks who don't see racism in every statement one makes. It would seem some of us still need to drop the hatred from their hearts and minds.

Re: Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

I didn't say anything like that. So, please don't try to twist my words. History has shown their were Black slave owners as well. But regardless of who owned whom, slavery was wrong. It was a terrible means to an economic end that has hinder a class of people from achieving much over the generations. But in many ways Blacks have caught up to their white counterparts which was what many whites feared even after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

I am but a handful of Blacks who don't see racism in every statement one makes. It would seem some of us still need to drop the hatred from their hearts and minds.

Ok and at what point are you going to stop going on a in a totally diffferent direction?

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

And what direction might that be?

The point of this thread is slavery in American history. Either one acknowledges it or not. Many people still believe slavery was good for the nation. I believe it was bad, but regardless of my opinion on the matter slavery did happen in this country. I find nothing wrong with discussing the issue. We do need to be reminded of such things from time to time if for no other reason than to remind us of a dark and evil time in our nation's history so that we shall not repeat it. But to play it up or to ignore it is to dishonor all who came before us to move this country further toward "establishing a more perfect union".